The Missing 1000?

Prior to entering the land of Canaan, the Israelites brazenly committed idolatry and sexual immorality with the Moabites. They consequently suffered divine judgment, and “those who died of the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Num. 25:9, ESV).

About fifteen centuries later the apostle Paul references the exploits of ancient Israel to warn the disciples at Corinth about the sins of idolatry and sexual immorality. He writes: “We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day” (1 Cor. 10:8).

Moses says “twenty-four thousand” and Paul says “twenty-three thousand,” an apparent discrepancy that has been referred to as “the infamous case of ‘the missing thousand,’ for which there is not an entirely satisfactory solution.”¹ But before we so readily dismiss the foundational principle of biblical inerrancy, why not consider other plausible explanations? 

It has been suggested that the additional 1000 of Moses’ account is applicable to “all the leaders” who were hanged (v. 5) and other men who were killed (v. 6) prior to the subsequent deaths.² While the number cited by Moses refers to “those who died of the plague,” we are assessing the statement in English translation. The operable word in the Hebrew text is maggephah, which can also be rendered “fatal blow” (Ezek. 24:16) or “slaughter” (1 Sam. 4:17; 2 Sam. 17:9; 18:7).³ In Numbers 25 not all the deaths were the result of a plague (vv. 4-8). In contrast, Paul speaks of the victims who “fell in a single day” rather than the total fatalities inclusive of the ones before and/or after this single day.

The solution may be even simpler. It is not a foregone conclusion that Paul is even alluding to the incident in Numbers 25. In the previous verse he has just quoted Exod. 32:6 and is likely referring to the number who fell on that occasion. Even though Exod. 32:28 records the deaths of “about three thousand men,” this figure applies to those killed by the sword, while vv. 33-35 report the ensuing aftermath of the plague.⁴ Paul simply reveals the death toll of a separate event. 

Whatever may or may not have been the nature of Paul’s example, there is no legitimate (much less blatant or provable!) discrepancy as many have surmised.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Gordon D. Fee, First Corinthians 456.

     ² John Gill, Exposition of the Bible <Web>.

     ³ Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, s.v. מַגֵּפָה.

     ⁴ Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties 141.

Related Posts:

Related Articles:

Image credit: https://unlockingthebible.org/2019/03/confuse-hosea-heres-need-know/confused-by-hosea-heres-what-you-need-to-know/

Were Bible Stories Copied from Ancient Myths? (Part 2 of 2)

Continuing from our previous post, British writer Sam Woolfe maintains that the biblical account of Jesus’ life is not original, “probably the story which actually has the most parallels with other religions,” representing “the archetypal story of the archetypal hero.”¹ As evidence Woolfe points to Peter Joseph’s conspiracy documentary Zeitgeist, even though Woolfe admits the film contains factual errors and overstates comparisons “in order to support his conspiracy theory.” Nonetheless, Woofe insists “there are still similarities between Jesus and other gods, suggesting that the authors of the Bible borrowed myths from other religions.” He particularly notes the “dying-and-returning-god” pattern of various myths, particularly Adonis, Tammuz, Osiris, Horus, Dionysus, Mithras, Attis, and Krishna, concluding this “suggests that there never was a real, historical Jesus.”

An Open-and-Shut Case?

The idea of an ancient “dying-and-returning god” archetype comes from Sir James George Frazer’s 1890 The Golden Bough: a Study in Comparative Religion. However, subsequent scholarship has proven the claim to be farcical. These so-called dying (or disappearing) and returning gods of ancient mythology are actually accounts of deities that died and did not return, or deities that returned but had not died. “The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts.”²

The same would apply to the alleged pagan origins of the virgin-birth narrative in Matthew and Luke’s Gospels.³ Reputable scholarship avoids such erroneous claims, even among liberal critics who deny the historicity of Christ’s virgin birth.⁴ One such scholar, Thomas Boslooper, writes: “The literature of the world is prolific with narratives of unusual births, but it contains no precise analogy to the virgin birth in Matthew and Luke. Jesus’ ‘virgin birth’ is not ‘pagan’.”⁵

Did Jesus Plagiarize His Teachings?

Jesus is recorded as saying, “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matt. 7:12 NKJV). It has been purported that he or his followers plagiarized this golden rule from eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and/or Jewish rabbis.⁶ But the statement, which is merely a tiny segment of an extensive discourse, is noticeably different from the prevailing ethic of reciprocity (“Give to get something in return”) or the negative and passive version, “Do not do to others what you would not want done to you.” Beyond a presumed maxim of human nature endowed by the Creator, and irrespective of the fact that Jesus is the first on record to express the positive and active form of the principle, he also cited “the Law and the Prophets,” which predate these eastern religions, Greek philosophers, and Jewish rabbis. Critics are assuming their conclusion to be true without proof.

Let’s Be Honest

When deceptive ploys, whether intentional or not, are used to challenge the Bible’s integrity, this ought to have the opposite effect once exposed. Secondary sources are not always credible. The popular charge that biblical writers borrowed from pagan mythology tends to be “characterized by brief word, phrase and sentence quotations that have been lifted out of context or incorrectly translated and used to support preconceived theories. Sweeping generalizations based on questionable evidence have become dogmatic conclusions that cannot be substantiated on the basis of careful investigation.”⁷

Commonsense Observations⁸

1. There is nothing unusual or suspect about any ancient record corresponding to the environment in which it emerged. There are only so many options available. Linguistic, historical, and cultural parallels can often confirm the realism and credence of biblical narratives but do not necessarily prove borrowing in any direction.

2. If something is historically true, it is not unprecedented to find similar reports in multiple accounts, albeit with variations developing over time. The prospect of different versions sharing a common historical core does not constitute anyone copying from anyone else.

3. When direct dependence can be established (e.g. quotes and illustrations), it is important to consider the nature of the usage and how it either affects or does not affect the matter at hand. Long before the modern copyright mentality, ancient authors could reasonably expect their contemporary readers to recognize well-known allusions and quoted materials.

4. If borrowing did occur yet historical positioning is overlooked, or if the dating of a presumed source is tentative or inaccurate, the Bible may have been the original source rather than vice versa.⁹ This would also include oral traditions that predate written texts.

5. Biblical documents were written by multiple authors for particular reading audiences at various times in different environments addressing a variety of issues. Effective communication naturally involves the employment of images and terminology intelligible and meaningful to the targeted audience (cf. 1 Cor. 9:22).

6. Apparent similarities do not override or discount significant differences. The uniqueness of the biblical record must still be accounted for.

7. When alleged parallels are artificial, exaggerated, and distorted, preconceptions may appear to be bolstered but the pursuit of truth is disrupted. 

Concluding Remarks

It is helpful to remember, “though the Bible arose in the ancient world, it was not entirely of it; though its history and its people resemble those of the surrounding nations, yet it radiates an atmosphere, a spirit, a faith far more profound than, and radically different from, that of any other ancient literature.”¹⁰ May we approach the biblical text, if not with eagerness to learn, at least with honesty and fairness.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Sam Woolfe, “How the Bible Borrowed from Other Stories,” Sam Woolfe (25 April 2013) <Link>.

     ² Jonathan Z. Smith, “Dying and Rising Gods,” in The Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade (London: Macmillan, 1987): 4:521-27. This would apply to all the deities Woolfe has listed, including Osiris, the Egyptian patron of the dead, who was reportedly murdered by his brother but then brought back to life by Isis. This “rebirth” enabled him to be lord of the underworld in the afterlife, since he could no longer rule the world of the living. Ancient Egyptians considered various facets of reality but did not envision a resurrection in this world (see Ogden Goeler, “Commentary,” in The Egyptian Book of the Dead: The Book of Going Forth By Day, The Complete Papyrus of Ani, ed. Eva von Dasso [San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1994]: 153). See also Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003); Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (NY: HarperCollins, 2012); Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, “The ‘Dying and Rising God’: A Survey of Research from Frazer to the Present Day,” in David and Zion: Biblical Studies in Honor of J. J. M. Roberts,” eds. B. F. Bernard and K. L. Roberts (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004): 373-86.

     ³ Walter Bundy opines, “The idea of a supernatural or virgin birth is pagan, and it must have found its way into the story of Jesus through Gentile-Christian channels” (Jesus and the First Three Gospels [Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955]: 11).

     ⁴ See Thomas Boslooper, The Virgin Birth (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962), who attributes the virgin-birth story to the influence of Philo’s allegorical method on Hellenistic Jewish Christianity. Also James Veitch, The Birth of Jesus: History or Myth? (Wellington: St Andrew’s Trust, 1997), who surmises that Matthew and Luke’s birth narratives were derived from stories in the Hebrew Bible.

     ⁵ Thomas Boslooper, op cit.136. Reginald H. Fuller, in his critical review of Boslooper’s work, states: “In an amazingly comprehensive historical survey of the doctrine from its first appearance in the infancy narratives to the later phases of biblical criticism, the author offers at every point shrewd and penetrating judgments. The historical survey in itself makes the work invaluable” (The Journal of Religion 43:3 [July 1963]: 254-55). Louis Matthews Sweet observes: “After a careful, laborious, and occasionally wearisome study of the evidence offered and analogies urged, I am convinced that heathenism knows nothing of virgin births” (The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1906]: 188).

     ⁶ This is ranked # 1 among Melloson Allen’s “10 Influences on the Bible,” in Jamie Frater’s Listverse.com's Bathroom Reader: Loads of Top Ten Lists (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2014).

     ⁷ Thomas Boslooper, op cit.135.

     ⁸ See Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003): 1-4.

     ⁹ For example, Apollonius of Tyana (AD 15-100) was a philosopher and mystic, and his biographer Philostratus (ca. 172-250) claims he performed miracles like Jesus (Life of Apollonius 3.38-39); by the late 2nd century he had become a cult figure rivaling Jesus. However, these stories “are at several points obviously influenced by stories about Jesus, not the other way around” (Albert A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the New Testament World [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998]: 131).

     ¹⁰ G. Ernest Wright, An Introduction to Biblical Archaeology, Rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962): xi.

Related Posts: Were Bible Stories Copied from Myths? (Part 1), The Study of Ancient History, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Related articles and videos: Dewayne Bryant, Is Christianity a Copycat Religion?

Image credit: http://www.featheredprop.com/did-christianity-borrow-from-other-religions/

Were Bible Stories Copied from Ancient Myths? (Part 1 of 2)

Sam Woolfe, a freelance writer and blogger based in London, claims the Bible’s “myths, stories and parables” are not original but “have been borrowed or copied from other myths from other religions …. if some of the central stories of the Bible have been plagiarised, then how can the Bible be the inerrant word of God? Is it the word of some other god before Christianity? Or does plagiarism in the Bible show that the book is not holy, but merely an invention of the imagination?”¹

In an attempt to establish his case, Woolfe points to similarities between biblical narratives and various ancient legends and myths, including Pandora’s Box and the Epic of Gilgamesh. Before we examine these allegations more carefully, suffice it to say that the way in which Woolfe has presented his arguments gives the appearance of a credible indictment against the Bible that some might find convincing. However, he, like other antibiblicists, ignores major differences among the various accounts, while cherry-picking, generalizing, and reconfiguring elements to create so-called “parallels” that make the case seem more plausible than it really is. Woolfe’s “well-researched content,” as he describes it, proves to be presumptive and deceptive.

Pandora’s Box?

According to Greek mythology dating back to at least the 8th century BC, Pandora was the first woman to be created, who opened a large storage jar (referred to as a “box” in modern descriptions) that unleashed all the evils of mankind. While there are similarities here with the Genesis 3 record of sin’s advent into the world, the details of both stories are so markedly different, one would be hard pressed to see much of a parallel unless the differences are overlooked. Nevertheless, the Genesis account was written about seven centuries before the earliest recorded appearance of the Pandora’s Box myth—hardly a case of plagiarism!

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis 1–3?

The Epic of Gilgamesh is an ancient Mesopotamian saga about the exploits of King Gilgamesh. The oldest version of this epic poem has been dated as early as about three centuries prior to the earliest biblical text. According to the Gilgamesh narrative, a man is created from clay who lives among the animals until he is tempted by a woman offering him food. He leaves his paradise home, puts on clothes, and a snake later steals the plant of immortality. With this selective summary, it is easy to see parallels to the biblical account of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden. The problem is, these comparisons hinge on overgeneralization and distortion of certain details,² while numerous others are ignored.

Following the story’s standard Akkadian version, Enkidu, who is neither the first nor the only man, is created by the goddess Anu, throwing a pinch of clay into the wilderness, at the instigation of the gods to counter King Gilgamesh’s aggression. Enkidu is a wild-man covered in hair (later described as the son of a gazelle and wild donkey), eats grass and wears “a garment like Sumukan,” living among the animals and preventing a trapper from catching them. The trapper brings Shamhat, a temple prostitute, to seduce Enkidu and introduce him to the ways of civilization. After six days and seven nights of carnal relations, Enkidu is lured out of the wild and taken to the shepherds’ hut where they give him food and seven jugs of beer. He turns into a human, bathes and clothes himself, and guards the sheep. After Enkidu fights with Gilgamesh, they become friends and go on adventures battling mythological forces. When Enkidu dies, Gilgamesh travels to “the Garden of the gods, a paradise full of jewel-laden trees.” In yet another episode Gilgamesh is told about a plant at the bottom of the sea that restores youth; he procures the plant only to have it stolen by a snake. More adventures follow.³

When the story of Enkidu and Gilgamesh is read alongside the biblical account of Adam and Eve, clear parallels are hard to find and nearly every comparison seems forced. It does demonstrate, however, that if something is removed from its context, it can mean just about anything one wants it to mean. 

The Epic of Gilgamesh and Genesis 6–9?

The Epic of Gilgamesh also contains the account of a great flood, comparable in many ways to what is recorded in Genesis 6–9. Grieving the loss of his friend Enkidu, Gilgamesh roams the wild searching for the secret of immortality. He meets Utnapishtim, who tells of the gods having sent a great flood on the city of Shuruppak to destroy mankind. But one of the gods (Ea) instructed Utnapishtim to build a boat according to precise measurements (10 x 12 cubits in height and width, with six decks), sealed with pitch and bitumen, to keep alive “all living beings.” Aboard the boat were all of Utnapishtim’s kinsmen, all of his possessions, and “all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen.” The god Shamash caused it to rain bread and wheat; then the mountain was submerged in water, and the gods were frightened by the flood and fled to the heavens. After six days and seven nights, the boat landed on Mt. Nimush. On the seventh day Utnapishtim sent out a dove followed by a swallow, both of which returned, but the raven he sent out did not return. Utnapishtim released everything and offered a sacrifice and incense, then he and his wife became like the gods. 

Critics argue that the two versions match so closely that the Bible’s flood narrative must have been derived from the Gilgamesh flood narrative. But is this the only or even the best possible explanation? The fact of the matter is, there are literally hundreds of curiously analogous flood stories among a wide variety of ancient cultures throughout Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, the Middle East, the Pacific Islands, and North, Central, and South America.⁴ Would anyone argue that all these traditions are based on the same fictitious tale, or could there have been a real catastrophic deluge that gave rise to such widespread and consistent testimony?

What if all these stories share a common historical core? Significant variation is not surprising, given the human tendency to modify and embellish, particularly over an extended period of time across vast geographical regions and copious linguistic and cultural groups. In fact, too much overlapping of details would warrant suspicion of collusion or copying. Yet striking commonalities among so many retellings of the event are more readily explicable if every culture descended from the survivors of a catastrophic flood.⁵

Concluding Thoughts

If one begins with certain preconceptions and relies too heavily on secondary sources, knowledge of the true state of affairs will almost surely be eluded. Any assertions based on contextual disregard, unprovable presuppositions, overstatements, and failure to consider other viable options, are deeply suspect. When misinformation and deception are involved, all credibility is lost. In our next post, we will address related challenges to the biblical story of Jesus.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Sam Woolfe, “How the Bible Borrowed from Other Stories,” Sam Woolfe (25 April 2013) <Link>.

     ² Jamie Frater’s Listverse.com's Bathroom Reader: Loads of Top Ten Lists (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2014) includes “10 Influences on the Bible” by Melloson Allen, in which the assertion is made that the Epic of Gilgamesh tells of a snake that steals the plant of immortality from Enkidu, the alleged archetypal Adam. But this is not true. The plant was stolen from King Gilgamesh, for whom there is no biblical parallel. 

     ³ The entire extant narrative, translated by Maureen Gallery Kovacs, can be accessed here <Link>.

     ⁴ For a detailed listing with summaries, see Mark Isaak, “Flood Stories from Around the World,” The TalkOrigens Archive (2 Sept. 2002) <Link>.

     ⁵ Biblical catastrophism challenges the popular theories of uniformitarianism and macro-evolution, and is consistent with geological phenomena such as sedimentary layers across and between continents, marine fossils on mountains, lack of erosion between rock layers, catastrophic fossilization, abnormal seismites in rock layers, wide-ranging sedimentary deposits, explosion of fully formed fossils above the Cambrian strata, and rapid rather than gradual deposition of sedimentary rock layers. See Jeff Miller, “Was the Flood Global? Testimony from Scripture and Science,” Apologetics Press (2019), <Link>.

Related Posts: The Bible in Perspective, Were Bible Stories Copied from Myths Part 2

Related articles: Jeffery P. Tompkins, Population Growth Matches Bible and DNA Clock; and Y-Chromosome Study Confirms Genesis Flood Timeline; Dewayne Bryant, Does the Bible Contain Fables?

Image credit: https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-the-epic-of-gilgamesh-73444

The Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A Response to Gary

     Gary describes himself as a former “devout orthodox (fundamentalist) Christian,” who has rejected the Christian faith and appears to be on a quest to discredit the Christian religion. He recently entered my tiny speck of the blogosphere, insisting that I read his review of his former pastor’s defense of the Lord’s resurrection. He claims that belief in the resurrection lacks any good evidence and is “based on nothing more than assumptions, second century hearsay, superstition, and giant leaps of faith.” I read his review <Link>. Here is my response.

Evaluating the Evidence

     Gary maintains that “the overwhelming majority” of skeptics accept the testimonies of early Christians as valid evidence, although the evidence must be scrutinized “with the caveat that there may well be bias present in their statements.” I agree with this approach and with Gary’s observation that “both sides have a bias, but biases do NOT necessarily invalidate the evidence.”¹

     Gary then affirms that he and most other skeptics “view the Bible as a mixture of truths and fiction. The key to understanding the Bible is examining each biblical claim to determine which category it belongs to, and not assuming every claim is true or every claim is false.” The problem here is that no one approaches the biblical record with a completely blank tablet, and one’s deep-seated presuppositions inevitably affect how the scriptures are evaluated. The pendulum swings in both directions. If one has little or no respect for the Bible or has a predisposition against it and examines the text merely to find fault, then the final assessment will almost certainly be negative.² Would Gary deny this about most, some, or any skeptics?

     It is commendable that he argues for an unbiased, objective analysis of the biblical evidence (I concur!), yet his own approach seems very one-sided. He repeatedly makes the very broad, anecdotal appeal to “the overwhelming majority” of skeptics and biblical scholars, but the only one he actually names is agnostic professor Bart Ehrman. How many scholarly critics are there (past and present), and where does each fit on the liberal-conservative theological spectrum, and who determines the percentage of the ones espousing a particular view? While I don’t know how many of these alleged experts Gary has read or listened to (presumably not all of them), it is apparent that his primary focus is pretty much limited to those who already agree with him. A clear example of this is his contention that “the Epistle of Second Peter is a known work of fraud! No scholar that I know of believes that Peter or any other eyewitness wrote that epistle.” There are numerous scholars that Gary evidently doesn’t “know of” who would disagree (e.g. D. A. Carson, E. M. B. Green, D. Guthrie, D. J. Moo, B. Reicke, etc.). Irrespective of which position one embraces, plethoric “scholars” can be cited for support.

The Biblical Evidence

     The main thrust of Gary’s argument is an attempt to discredit the veracity of the biblical record in general, and eyewitness testimony in particular. “But all we have,” Gary assures his readers, “are four accounts written decades later, two of which and maybe three borrow heavily (plagiarize) from the first, by anonymous persons writing in far away lands, whom most scholars do NOT believe were eyewitnesses. Yes, dear Reader, you read that correctly: the majority of New Testament scholars living today do NOT believe that eyewitnesses wrote the four Gospels and the Book of Acts.”

     First of all, the four Gospel accounts are not “all we have.” Secondly, the assertion that “maybe three” of them plagiarize from the first is an allegation that no reputable scholar, to my knowledge, has ever made. That two of the Gospels borrowed from the first is a popular theory among non-conservatives, but this is not universally conceded nor is it proven. In fact, the striking differences among the synoptic accounts argue more readily for literary independence.³ Thirdly, the charge that most scholars deny “that eyewitnesses wrote the four Gospels and the Book of Acts” is not the earthshattering revelation that Gary seems to think it is. No one who is aware of the facts, even among extreme fundamentalists, believes that Luke-Acts and the Gospel of Mark were penned by eyewitnesses. The real issue is whether these two authors were acquainted with eyewitnesses and based their respective reports on eyewitness testimony, and whether the other two Gospel writers themselves were eyewitnesses (see Authorship of the NT Gospels, and Biblical Authorship Part 1).

     Gary has boarded the trendy anti-conservative bandwagon and asserts that the Gospel of Luke “wasn’t written until the 80s at the earliest, so the Book of Acts was probably not written until the last decades of the first century, if not the early second century!” Gary is trying to argue that it’s “quite possible that NO ONE was alive at the time of the writing and subsequent distribution of the Book of Acts who had witnessed the crucifixion of Jesus!” However, by taking the internal textual evidence at face value rather than relying on subjective literary theory and philosophical presuppositions, Luke’s Gospel would appear to have been completed as early as 59. Attention to the “we” sections in Acts reveals that the author arrived in Jerusalem with Paul in late spring 57 (Acts 20:6, 16; 21:17) and faded out of the picture for a couple of years until autumn 59 when he and Paul departed from Caesarea on the voyage to Rome (Acts 27:1-9). An extended period in Jerusalem would have afforded him the ideal opportunity to gather the necessary information for his “orderly account” (Luke 1:1-4). The historical record of Acts concludes at the end of Paul’s two-year Roman imprisonment, i.e., spring of 62. The most obvious explanation for the abrupt ending is that the historical account had actually reached this point.⁴ The textual/historical evidence does not support Gary’s unfounded assumption.

Eyewitness Testimony

     Gary reduces the eyewitness testimony to “Paul and a few Galilean peasants,” who allegedly believed a couple of appearance stories “based solely on vivid dreams, trances, and visions.” Is this a fair representation of the facts? Gary provides NO historical evidence for his explanation. 
     Despite the popularity of the Markan priority theory, the Gospels of Mark and John are clearly independent of one another, while Matthew and Luke differ enough from Mark to establish them as independent sources. The book of Acts is replete with recorded testimonies (Acts 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:18-20; 5:30-32; 10:39-40). Luke’s Gospel and the Hebrews epistle explicitly claim eyewitness corroboration (Luke 1:1-4; Heb. 2:3-4), while there are first-hand statements in the writings of John (John 19:33-35; 1 John 1:1-3) and the Petrine documents (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 Pet. 1:16). And then there’s Paul. 
     In 1 Cor. 15:3-8 (an undisputed Pauline document by the way), the apostle mentions over 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ, most of whom were still alive at the time, and no less than fourteen of the names were known (with additional names in the other accounts) and could be verified. It’s as though he’s challenging his readers to check him out (cf. Acts 26:26). Remember that the New Testament is not merely a single record; it is the compilation of twenty-seven separate documents spanning multiple geographical locations and time periods, representing numerous independent sources that remarkably harmonize.

     While an individual might have “vivid dreams, trances, and visions,” we’re talking about hundreds of people on dozens of occasions over an extended period of time! Jesus was not only seen alive after his crucifixion, he was also communicated with and touched. And then there’s the empty tomb. If the ardent claims of these professed eyewitnesses are false, why didn’t the Roman or Jewish authorities produce the corpse to dispel the crazy rumors and stop the Christian movement in its tracks?

     Gary asks, “Did Paul claim that there was an Empty Tomb?” and concludes that the empty tomb is “a fact NEVER mentioned in any of the writings of Paul! …. Paul never mentions this detail ONCE!” Gary is right if we’re limiting our discussion to these specific words. However, the apostle makes numerous implicit references to the empty tomb with his repeated and adamant allusions to the resurrected Lord (Rom. 1:4; 4:24-25; 6:4-9; 7:4; 8:11, 34; 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:1-8, 12-21; 2 Cor. 4:14; 5:15; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1:20; Phil. 3:10; Col. 2:12; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:14; 2 Tim. 2:8; cf. Acts 13:30, 33, 34, 37; 17:3, 18, 31, 32; 24:21; 25:19).

How Much Evidence is Needed?

     Gary says that “if scholars could point to the confirmed testimony of even ONE of the original eleven disciples, most skeptics would consider this fantastic, very relevant evidence. But unfortunately we do not have such evidence.” He also cynically requests: “Please provide ONE verified statement by just ONE eyewitness who claims to have seen and touched the walking/talking dead body of Jesus.” 

     The problem with these demands is that no amount of evidence, especially from the Bible, is going to satisfy those who are predisposed to dismissing biblical (supernatural) claims. If secular authors were held to the same critical scrutiny as biblical authors, no one could be certain that anyone in particular wrote or said or did anything. If the historical evidence for Christ’s resurrection, including abundant eyewitness corroboration, is not enough to convince someone, how can he/she be sure about any historical event?

     The bottom line is this: what is one’s standard of proof, and what presuppositions influence the evaluative process? If a person is limited to a strictly naturalistic worldview, then the possibility of God and supernatural occurrences is automatically ruled out from the start. But what if the evidence points beyond the natural world?

Here are the indisputable facts:

o   Jesus of Nazareth was a real person in history.

o   He died in 1st-century Palestine by crucifixion.

o   Numerous individuals and groups adamantly believed that he appeared to them alive.

o   The tomb was empty.

o   The movement quickly spread, and thousands of these early Christians suffered brutal persecution, even tortuous deaths, for their testimony and unrelenting faith.

o   Paul of Tarsus, a violent persecutor of the Jesus followers, became a steadfast believer and proclaimer of the resurrected Jesus.

     The Bible consistently makes historical claims about real people and events in actual places and times, presenting its case for either confirmation or falsification. If Jesus didn’t walk out of the tomb, the biblical record is a lie and “we are of all men the most pitiable” (1 Cor. 15:19). If, however, he did conquer death, it is the most significant event in all of human history and it would be foolish to ignore it. The life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ has radically shaped the course of history and countless lives and is as certain as any fact of history can be.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See Bible Miracles: Fact or Fiction? 

     ² See The Bible in Perspective.

     ³ See The Synoptic Problem & Markan Priority Part 1, and Part 2.

     ⁴ See The Dating of Luke-Acts and Why It Matters; also The Authorship of Luke-Acts. Among the ancients (from Herodotus 420 BC to Marcellinus AD 395), eyewitness testimony was regarded as the most reliable historical source (D. E. Aune,  NT Literary Environment 81).

*Update: While Gary responded to my response, it's interesting that among the plethoric critical articles he has posted before and since, his original article to which I responded is no longer posted.

Addendum:

     While Paul is not providing an exhaustive list in 1 Corinthian 15:3-8, most critical scholars believe he is reiterating an early creedal formula that goes back to the original disciples. Paul specifically mentions fourteen eyewitnesses plus over 500 more. The Gospels-Acts reveal at least seven additional eyewitnesses (unless Nathanael = Bartholomew). Twenty of these are named in the biblical record: eleven of the original apostles, James the Lord’s brother, Paul, Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Salome, Joanna, Nathanael (?), Joseph Barsabas Justus, and Matthias. Of the 500+ eyewitnesses, Paul affirms that most of them were still alive at the time and their testimony could therefore be verified (cf. Acts 26:26). Moreover, the first documented eyewitnesses were women (Mark 16:1-8), which is inconceivable if the story were invented, seeing that a woman's testimony in the first-century Greco-Roman world was not legally admissible. If the bodily resurrection of Jesus could so easily be discredited, why was it the central doctrine of the Christian faith and how did it spawn a worldwide movement?

Addendum #2:

     Which is the most likely explanation of the New Testament’s consistent claim of Christ’s resurrection? (1) Conspiracy theories (e.g. the body was stolen) do not reasonably explain the unrelenting faith of the post-resurrection disciples. (2) Hallucination theories do not account for the empty tomb or for the numerous claims of eyewitness sightings at different times and places. (3) Swoon theories (Jesus didn’t really die on the cross) are contrary to any known historical account of Roman crucifixion – no known survivors! (4) Myth theories do not reasonably account for any of the evidence. (5) Jesus having risen from the dead accounts for all the evidence: he was confirmed dead, the tomb in which his corpse was buried was later found empty, and numerous eyewitnesses were convinced they saw and interacted with Jesus afterwards, willing to suffer and die for their testimony.

Addendum #3:

     Hallucinations, as projections of a person's mind, do not explain why multiple persons on multiple occasions initially failed to recognize Jesus (Luke 24:13-32; John 20:11-18; 21:4-12), a fact that does not bolster the story if it were not true. In each account Jesus is eventually recognized through personal interaction.

Related Posts: Challenging Anti-Conservative Presuppositions Part 1, Authorship of 2 Peter, Chronology of Christ's Death & Resurrection 

Related articles: Lee Strobel's How Easter Killed My Faith in Atheism, The Babylon Bee's Millions Worldwide Cling to Faith, J. W. Wallace's Review of Explanations, Donnie DeBord's Non-Negotiable, Dean Meadow's Did the Resurrection Happen?

Image credit: http://www.hbcharlesjr.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Dollarphotoclub_79055925.jpg